On The Distribution of Spouses

[Cranborne]

I was pondering on the right to life when an idea popped into my mind. The right to life is among the most important, if not the most important right, we have as human beings - it is among the highest of all natural rights. But life is not just our current lives, but our children are continuations of our lives and just as we are the continuation of the lives of our ancestors. Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.

Governments are also supposed to enforce rights and not let them fall into neglect. Unfortunately, as can be seen with the likes of incels and even worse, MGTOW community, this right to life has been neglected. So what is to be done by the government in such a case? The distribution of spouses.

I propose that each heterosexual person be placed into a lottery system - both male and female. Once the person is called up, they are to be paired with the other person drawn from the lottery alongside them. They are then to be man and wife, preferably for the rest of their lives. It is not too drastic of a change from arranged marriages, which have served humanity well. This would ensure that every person has a spouse and thus better further ones chances of continuing their lives than our current courtship system does. Further, the lottery system would help ensure that the rich are less able to bribe their way into being pared with high quality mates - the poor should not be punished and I consider myself to be a friend of the poor.

This system would further reduce crime, as women calm men's darkest tendencies, and improve the economy through reduced crime, increased happiness, and a far more stable labor force that is self-replicating (as natalist policies should naturally be enacted in any system, not just this one).

Agree or Disagree?

[Costa Fierro]

Anyone mentioning MGTOW is like shining the bat signal to me. So let's get right into the meat'n'vegetables of this alarming yet amusing proposal.

Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.

Marriage isn't the most optimum way in which new life is created. Having sex is. And being married can widely vary the frequency of sexual intercourse. It's estimated that between 15-20% of marriages are sexless, although that figure is likely much higher given only 32% of married couples have sex two or three times a week. But those are figures for the US. In places such as Japan for example, nearly half of all marriages are sexless.

And even then, the well being of children is more often linked to parental income than the marital status of a parent. A rich child raised by a single wealthy parent is going to be better off than a child raised by working class parents.

Governments are also supposed to enforce rights and not let them fall into neglect.

Governments are meant to uphold rights. And the "right to life" can be interpreted in a number of different ways.

Unfortunately, as can be seen with the likes of incels and even worse, MGTOW community, this right to life has been neglected.

How so? You're comparing apples and oranges here. Incels, the name itself being a contraction of "involuntarily celibate", are a bunch of people who do want relationships and marriage but otherwise lack the physical attractiveness or the social skills (or both) necessary to achieve sexual and social success with women. MGTOW, which is an acronym for "Men Going Their Own Way", want the opposite: they want as little to do with women as humanly possible. The latter avoid marriages, relationships, cohabitation and friendships with women and focus on self improvement, self value and self happiness. They (rightfully) believe that marriage and relationships come with absolutely no tangible benefits whatsoever and a whole lot of risks.

I propose that each heterosexual person be placed into a lottery system - both male and female. Once the person is called up, they are to be paired with the other person drawn from the lottery alongside them. They are then to be man and wife, preferably for the rest of their lives.

The first problem with this, is that it's based on a lottery. You don't know who you're going to get, what they look like, what they're like and there's absolutely no guarantees that the person is going to anything remotely like what you want them to do in a relationship.

Secondly is that you're forcing men into marriage, probably the worst social institution that exists. There's no benefits of marriage as it stands now, there's not going to be any additional ones in this system. It doesn't fundamentally change how marriage works and the man's roles within it, it merely makes marriage non-negotiable. There's absolutely no reason why men should essentially become slaves to not only their wives, but society.

It is not too drastic of a change from arranged marriages, which have served humanity well.

People arranging marriages at least make an attempt at finding suitable partners for their offspring. And arranged marriages can only be found in Third World countries, which should give you a clue as to how well they're serving the cultures that still embrace them.

Further, the lottery system would help ensure that the rich are less able to bribe their way into being pared with high quality mates - the poor should not be punished and I consider myself to be a friend of the poor.

Friends of the poor do not force them into servitude.

This system would further reduce crime, as women calm men's darkest tendencies

Just look at at these women taming men's darkest tendencies.

And the great thing about the lottery is that who knows if your lovely new wife might just decide to kill you!

[Tahar Joblis]

Not sure if this is a satirical suggestion or just flying completely out of left field, but ...

... one of the reasons why arranged marriages have worked out reasonably well on the social level within some societies is because they've functioned primarily on the basis of people with a stake making deliberate matches.

Most parents are going to try to arrange a match that they think will work out, and in particular arrange matches between people with generally similar backgrounds. Traditionally, marriage functioned as an alliance or bond between families. Conversely, in this sort of arranged marriage, the couple has an incentive to try to make the marriage work out (because their family has an interest in that).

This is also true of the intermediate levels of "arrangement" - e.g., where matches are self-selected but within a framework manipulated and arranged by parents (think about the sort of Victorian-era dynamic seen in Jane Austen novels - parents largely control social access to daughters and have an effective if not absolute veto).

It's baldly and flatly true that many of us are terrible at match-making functionally for ourselves - in part because we're not really taught how to do it effectively and in part because it's hard to have a detached perspective about yourself - but even a lottery system that people signed up for (much less that they were forced into) is unlikely to succeed at producing very successful marriages.

It could be interesting to write about in a fictional setting, though.

[The Blaatschapen]

I'd prefer to stay single than to randomly hook up with someone.

And marriage comes with all kinds of financial caveats as well.

Pass.

My vast preference is that the government gets out of the love lifes of its citizens as much as possible.

[Petrolheadia]

I'll crank A/C up, since summer has started.

Well, no.
Just. Fucking. No.

A decision so impactful of one's life should be left all to individuals. Especially when some (including me) prefer not to make it at all, at least at the current point.

[The Holy Therns]

Terrible idea, but if you write this dystopia into a novel I'd happily read it.

[Uxupox]

I was pondering on the right to life when an idea popped into my mind. The right to life is among the most important, if not the most important right, we have as human beings - it is among the highest of all natural rights. But life is not just our current lives, but our children are continuations of our lives and just as we are the continuation of the lives of our ancestors. Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.

Governments are also supposed to enforce rights and not let them fall into neglect. Unfortunately, as can be seen with the likes of incels and even worse, MGTOW community, this right to life has been neglected. So what is to be done by the government in such a case? The distribution of spouses.

I propose that each heterosexual person be placed into a lottery system - both male and female. Once the person is called up, they are to be paired with the other person drawn from the lottery alongside them. They are then to be man and wife, preferably for the rest of their lives. It is not too drastic of a change from arranged marriages, which have served humanity well. This would ensure that every person has a spouse and thus better further ones chances of continuing their lives than our current courtship system does. Further, the lottery system would help ensure that the rich are less able to bribe their way into being pared with high quality mates - the poor should not be punished and I consider myself to be a friend of the poor.

This system would further reduce crime, as women calm men's darkest tendencies, and improve the economy through reduced crime, increased happiness, and a far more stable labor force that is self-replicating (as natalist policies should naturally be enacted in any system, not just this one).

Agree or Disagree?

how is mgtow worse than the incel community?

[The Free Joy State]

My vast preference is that the government gets out of the love lifes of its citizens as much as possible.

^ This.

You propose that, just because someone is heterosexual, they get placed in a lottery and have their spouse selected for them. And they get no say?

Not every person, male or female, heterosexual or LGBT, wants to be married. Not everyone wants children, which you (OP) cite as the reason for this proposal.

Forcing someone, especially someone who did not want to be married, into marriage would not be to their benefit.

Compatibility is a thing, which this lottery idea completely ignores. I don't like arranged marriage either, but at least good parents would consider their child's opinions somewhat in their decisions.

Spousal abuse is also a thing. I imagine it would become more prevalent if people were forced -- sight unseen -- with people who they would otherwise cross the street to avoid. How would binding incompatible people together, in domestic misery "reduce crime... and increase happiness"?

Finally, marriage is not a cure-all for all society's ills.

In short: no. Categorically no.

EDIT: However, if this is (as some have mused) a proposal for some dystopian novel set in some horrendous future, I'd read it.

[Costa Fierro]

I was pondering on the right to life when an idea popped into my mind. The right to life is among the most important, if not the most important right, we have as human beings - it is among the highest of all natural rights. But life is not just our current lives, but our children are continuations of our lives and just as we are the continuation of the lives of our ancestors. Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.

Governments are also supposed to enforce rights and not let them fall into neglect. Unfortunately, as can be seen with the likes of incels and even worse, MGTOW community, this right to life has been neglected. So what is to be done by the government in such a case? The distribution of spouses.

I propose that each heterosexual person be placed into a lottery system - both male and female. Once the person is called up, they are to be paired with the other person drawn from the lottery alongside them. They are then to be man and wife, preferably for the rest of their lives. It is not too drastic of a change from arranged marriages, which have served humanity well. This would ensure that every person has a spouse and thus better further ones chances of continuing their lives than our current courtship system does. Further, the lottery system would help ensure that the rich are less able to bribe their way into being pared with high quality mates - the poor should not be punished and I consider myself to be a friend of the poor.

This system would further reduce crime, as women calm men's darkest tendencies, and improve the economy through reduced crime, increased happiness, and a far more stable labor force that is self-replicating (as natalist policies should naturally be enacted in any system, not just this one).

Agree or Disagree?

how is mgtow worse than the incel community?

MGTOW's avoid marriage.

[Uxupox]

how is mgtow worse than the incel community?

MGTOW's avoid marriage.

i don't understand how that is bad?

[Saiwania]

Well, getting a relationship is in a way- like getting a job. It has to gradually be acquired via someone's own efforts and if they've gone no where in life or just isn't able to for whatever reason, that tends to keep them down in status or alone forever. It is a positive feedback loop that is hard to break or escape once someone is doomed via bad decisions or whatever else went wrong with them as they aged.

Some people (like myself) just will not ever make it. I'm at peace with having lost.

[Baltenstein]

That sounds like an idea straight out of an Objectivist dystopian novel.

[Purgatio]

I was pondering on the right to life when an idea popped into my mind. The right to life is among the most important, if not the most important right, we have as human beings - it is among the highest of all natural rights. But life is not just our current lives, but our children are continuations of our lives and just as we are the continuation of the lives of our ancestors. Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to stop you just right there. A "right to life" means that I, and the State, cannot arbitrarily murder you or stab you to death or take your life. Because you are a free, autonomous, thinking and feeling person and stealing your life from you will also deny you all your other fundamental rights.

Nothing in what I just said implies that there is a "right for human beings to be born". A "right to life" does not mean a "right of hypothetical, non-existent persons to become persons through reproduction, pregnancy and birth". Please don't confuse the two. If I stab my child to death, that's murder. If a couple decides not to have sex and have children, that's not murder. See the difference?

[The Holy Therns]

I was pondering on the right to life when an idea popped into my mind. The right to life is among the most important, if not the most important right, we have as human beings - it is among the highest of all natural rights. But life is not just our current lives, but our children are continuations of our lives and just as we are the continuation of the lives of our ancestors. Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to stop you just right there. A "right to life" means that I, and the State, cannot arbitrarily murder you or stab you to death or take your life. Because you are a free, autonomous, thinking and feeling person and stealing your life from you will also deny you all your other fundamental rights.

Nothing in what I just said implies that there is a "right for human beings to be born". A "right to life" does not mean a "right of hypothetical, non-existent persons to become persons through reproduction, pregnancy and birth". Please don't confuse the two. If I stab my child to death, that's murder. If a couple decides not to have sex and have children, that's not murder. See the difference?

I've heard people talk about rights of the unborn, but rights of the unconceived is new...

[The Blaatschapen]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to stop you just right there. A "right to life" means that I, and the State, cannot arbitrarily murder you or stab you to death or take your life. Because you are a free, autonomous, thinking and feeling person and stealing your life from you will also deny you all your other fundamental rights.

Nothing in what I just said implies that there is a "right for human beings to be born". A "right to life" does not mean a "right of hypothetical, non-existent persons to become persons through reproduction, pregnancy and birth". Please don't confuse the two. If I stab my child to death, that's murder. If a couple decides not to have sex and have children, that's not murder. See the difference?

I've heard people talk about rights of the unborn, but rights of the unconceived is new...

Not that new. Every sperm is sacred.

[Trumptonium1]

MGTOW's avoid marriage.

i don't understand how that is bad?

number of retired per employee


simple stuff

when you have
100 employees per 10 retired, they all split the retired's government pension of $10 000 per year between them - $1000 each in tax
90 employees per 10 retired, they all split the retired's government pension of $10 000 per year between them - $1111 each in tax
80 employees per 10 retired, they all split the retired' government pension of $10 000 per year between them - $1250 each in tax (US atm)
35 employees per 10 retired, they all split the retired's government pension of $10 000 per year between them - $2857 each in tax (US 2050, Japan right now)
20 employees per 10 retired, they all split the retired's government pension of $10000 per year between them - $5000 each in tax (France in 2050)
14 employees per 10 retired, they all split the retired's government pension of $10000 per year between them - $7142 each in tax (Japan 2050)

unless we have extreme rates of taxation on the rich or move to a different type of economy, the elderly will starve or the working-age population will stop bothering

at current trends, basically everyone born in the 2020s+ will be assigned a retired person born before 2000 whose job will be to take financial care of them. sounds nice, i guess, until they revolt.

[The Holy Therns]

I've heard people talk about rights of the unborn, but rights of the unconceived is new...

Not that new. Every sperm is sacred.

Bring them to church, we'll get them baptized.

[The Free Joy State]

I've heard people talk about rights of the unborn, but rights of the unconceived is new...

Not that new. Every sperm is sacred.

Menstruation is murder!

[The Blaatschapen]

Not that new. Every sperm is sacred.

Menstruation is murder!

Shouldn't be that called womenstruation anyway?

[Ifreann]

Terrible idea, but if you write this dystopia into a novel I'd happily read it.

Product exists: Twilight.

[The Free Joy State]

Menstruation is murder!

Shouldn't be that called womenstruation anyway?

Ah, other women may. Takes too long.

And, why ruin the alliteration? Now, the murder of a good piece of alliteration, that would be the real crime.

[The Holy Therns]

Terrible idea, but if you write this dystopia into a novel I'd happily read it.

Product exists: Twilight.

Naw, I want actual lottery scenes. Preferably with some super over the top TV show host declaring people married for life.

[The Blaatschapen]

Shouldn't be that called womenstruation anyway?

Ah, other women may. Takes too long.

And, why ruin the alliteration? Now, the murder of a good piece of alliteration, that would be the real crime.

Menstruation takes too long? Doesn't it take about a period?

And I did not know you were a woman, I'll remember that.

[Purgatio]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to stop you just right there. A "right to life" means that I, and the State, cannot arbitrarily murder you or stab you to death or take your life. Because you are a free, autonomous, thinking and feeling person and stealing your life from you will also deny you all your other fundamental rights.

Nothing in what I just said implies that there is a "right for human beings to be born". A "right to life" does not mean a "right of hypothetical, non-existent persons to become persons through reproduction, pregnancy and birth". Please don't confuse the two. If I stab my child to death, that's murder. If a couple decides not to have sex and have children, that's not murder. See the difference?

I've heard people talk about rights of the unborn, but rights of the unconceived is new...

How heartless, think about all those poor, hypothetical, unconceived 'possible persons', and all the rights they supposedly have and can't ever exercise. Who's looking out for them?

[The Blaatschapen]

Terrible idea, but if you write this dystopia into a novel I'd happily read it.

Product exists: Twilight.

More like Hunger games.